Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I2-statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects. Results Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03–0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00–0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Conclusions Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background: Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. Methods: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. Results: A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). Conclusion: Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified

Risk factors for developing capsular contracture in women after breast implant surgery: A systematic review of the literature

Background: Capsular contracture is the most frequent complication in breast augmentation or reconstruction with breast implants. The exact mechanism for this complication is not completely understood. Yet, it is most likely to be a multifactorial condition. Several patient-, surgery-, and implant-specific risk factors have been related to cause capsular contracture. This review aims to provide a clear overview of all risk factors for capsular contracture. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed focusing on patient-, surgery-, and/or implant-related factors related to capsular contracture in breast implants. PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published from inception up to October 20, 2016. The included studies were assessed for the following main variables: study characteristics, patient characteristics, indication for surgery, type of surgery, implant characteristics, and other characteristics. Results: Data on the risk factors for the development of capsular contracture were retrieved from 40 studies. A presumptive increased risk in the development of capsular contracture is shown for the following variables: longer duration of follow-up, breast reconstructive surgery in patients with a history of breast cancer, subglandular implant placement, postoperative hematoma, and a textured implant surface. There is little, weak, or no evidence for the association of other factors with capsular contracture. This review also shows a large heterogeneity between studies and within the definition of capsular contracture. Conclusion: This review provides an overview of the relationship between patient-, surgery-, and implant-specific risk factors in the development of capsular contracture

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Breast Cancer Patients Through Fluorescent Imaging Using Indocyanine Green: The INFLUENCE Trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the (sentinel) lymph node detection rate of indocyanine green (ICG)-fluorescent imaging versus standard-of-care 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-mapping. BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for axillary staging in patients with breast cancer is sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radio-guided surgery using radioisotope technetium ( 99m Tc), sometimes combined with blue dye. A promising alternative is fluorescent imaging using ICG. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, we enrolled 102 consecutive patients with invasive early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer. Patients were planned for breast conserving surgery and SLNB between August 2020 and June 2021. The day or morning before surgery, patients were injected with 99m Tc-nanocolloid. In each patient, SLNB was first performed using ICG-fluorescent imaging, after which excised lymph nodes were tested with the gamma-probe for 99m Tc-uptake ex vivo, and the axilla was checked for residual 99m Tc-activity. The detection rate was defined as the proportion of patients in whom at least 1 (S)LN was detected with either tracer. RESULTS: In total, 103 SLNBs were analyzed. The detection rate of ICG-fluorescence was 96.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI)=90.4%-98.9%] versus 86.4% (95% CI=78.3%-92.4%) for 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. The detection rate for pathological lymph nodes was 86.7% (95% CI=59.5%-98.3%) for both ICG and 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. A median of 2 lymph nodes were removed. ICG-fluorescent imaging did not increase detection time. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ICG-fluorescence showed a higher (S)LN detection rate than 99m Tc-nanocoilloid, and equal detection rate for pathological (S)LNs. ICG-fluorescence may be used as a safe and effective alternative to 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for SLNB in patients with early-stage breast cancer

Risk factors for unplanned reoperation during the expansion phase in two-stage breast reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. METHODS: Patient and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Co-variate adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4 percent of all registered TEs (n=3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were BMI=25 kg/m 2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]=1.63;99% Confidence Interval [99%CI]=1.20-2.57 for BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2, aOR=2.57;99%CI=1.74-3.78 for BMI=30 kg/m 2), low institutional volume (aOR=1.51;99%CI=1.06-2.18), no drains (aOR=2.06;99%CI=1.15-3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR=5.71;99%CI=3.59-9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR=1.35;99%CI=1.02-1.79). Age&lt;40 years (aOR=0.49;99%CI=0.32-0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR=0.35;99%CI=0.19-0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4 percent). CONCLUSION: This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation which may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR

Physical and mental health of breast cancer patients and survivors before and during successive SARS-CoV-2-infection waves

Purpose: During the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave, a deterioration in emotional well-being and increased need for mental health care were observed among patients treated or being treated for breast cancer. In this follow-up study, we assessed patient-reported quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave in a large, representative cohort. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. To assess patient-reported QoL, physical functioning and psychosocial well-being, COVID-19-specific surveys were completed by patients during the first and second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves (April and November 2020, respectively). An identical survey was completed by a comparable reference population during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves. All surveys included the validated EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, HADS and “De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness” questionnaires. Pre-COVID-19 EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23 and HADS outcomes were available from UMBRELLA. Response rates were 69.3% (n = 1106/1595) during the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave and 50.9% (n = 822/1614) during the second wave. A total of 696 patients responded during both SARS-CoV-2-infection waves and were included in the analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave to PROs during the first wave. Moreover, PROs reported by all patients during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave (n = 822) were compared to PROs of a similar non-cancer reference population (n = 241) and to their pre-COVID-19 PROs. Results: Patient-reported QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer remained stable or improved from the first to the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. The proportion of emotional loneliness reduced from 37.6 to 29.9% of patients. Compared to a similar non-cancer reference population, physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning, future perspectives and symptoms of dyspnea and insomnia were worse in patients treated or being treated for breast cancer during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. PROs in the second wave were similar to pre-COVID-19 PROs. Conclusion: Although patients scored overall worse than individuals without breast cancer, QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being did not deteriorate between the first and second wave. During the second wave, PROs were similar to pre-COVID-19 values. Overall, current findings are cautiously reassuring for future mental health of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (officially declared on the March 11, 2020), and the resulting measures, are impacting daily life and medical management of breast cancer patients and survivors. We evaluated to what extent these changes have affected quality of life, physical, and psychosocial well-being of patients previously or currently being treated for breast cancer. Methods: This study was conducted within a prospective, multicenter cohort of breast cancer patients and survivors (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion). Shortly after the implementation of COVID-19 measures, an extra survey was sent to 1595 participants, including the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core (C30) and breast cancer- specific (BR23) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared with the most recent PROs collected within UMBRELLA pre-COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on PROs was assessed using mixed model analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: 1051 patients and survivors (65.9%) completed the survey; 31.1% (n = 327) reported a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistically significant deterioration in emotional functioning was observed (mean = 82.6 [SD = 18.7] to 77.9 [SD = 17.3]; P <. 001), and 505 (48.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.0% to 51.1%) patients and survivors reported moderate to severe loneliness. Small improvements were observed in quality of life and physical, social, and role functioning. In the subgroup of 51 patients under active treatment, social functioning strongly deteriorated (77.3 [95% CI = 69.4 to 85.2] to 61.3 [95% CI = 52.6 to 70.1]; P =. 002). Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer patients and survivors were less likely to contact physicians and experienced a deterioration in their emotional functioning. Patients undergoing active treatment reported a substantial drop in social functioning. One in 2 reported loneliness that was moderate or severe. Online interventions supporting mental health and social interaction are needed during times of social distancing and lockdowns